|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inequality
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
So, being poor, I get to speak for the poor. If I was Eton Oxbridge educated, I might come up with sound economic reasons why rich people are best motivated by the idea of becoming richer, while poor people can only be motivated by the threat of becoming poorer. If the UK government can do it, and sound plausible, it cannot be that difficult.
But, I am not so educated. Just an ordinary, simple, mere*, Christian. Just noticing that, did we all love our neighbours as ourselves, there would be no disparities in net worth or income, because each others well-being would be as equally important to us as our own. But, alas, it seems we do not so love.
Is, then, the extent of our bank balance the measure by which we do not love our neighbour as ourselves, and thus the extent to which we are not Christian? Or are we merely being prudent, as we accrue wealth, looking after our own interests, and those of our dearest, in a cold-hearted, indifferent world?
Best wishes, PV.
*mere, in the CS Lewis sense of the word.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
As ever, it's not a simple either/or. Some with huge bank balances may be far closer to following Christ than some with nothing at all.
It's whether or not money is what we put first, before God, that matters.
It's also about the status we give to ourselves and to other people. If we genuinely love others as ourselves, it does not necessarily mean that we will give them all of our money - especially if that meant that we would starve in our old age.
I'm not convinced of a motivation theory that says that poor people are only motivated by the threat of becoming poorer. Perhaps it was thought up by someone rich.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or. Some with huge bank balances may be far closer to following Christ than some with nothing at all.
It's whether or not money is what we put first, before God, that matters.
Like you, I don't say it's simple. I just question the right of those with huge bank balances to call themselves Christians, in an age of global hunger.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's also about the status we give to ourselves and to other people. If we genuinely love others as ourselves, it does not necessarily mean that we will give them all of our money - especially if that meant that we would starve in our old age.
Indeed, not. There is, for instance, no point in being charitable to an addict, directly. But any intelligent individual with an excess of money could find a way to do good with it, if they really wanted to. And who knows? In a kinder society, perhaps they need not worry so much about their old age.
quote:
I'm not convinced of a motivation theory that says that poor people are only motivated by the threat of becoming poorer. Perhaps it was thought up by someone rich.
Yes, I think that's right. But it has been adopted by our Prime Minister and our Chancellor of the Exchequer (both independently millionaires) as if it were Holy Writ.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No point eh?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
The thread's title is about equality, and this is not the same as non-poverty. I expect you would accept that people are hugely unequal in terms of their life chances, based on health, attractiveness, talent, home environment, loads of genetic factors and so on.
So the question is: To what extent should society smooth away these differences, so as to approximate to everybody having the same life chances? And so you get, what to me it the left-right circle that can't be squared: the freer a society, the more natural differences will come into play, so the only way to smooth these away is to control more.
So, for example, a society in which all marriages are arranged reduces the degree of disadvantage that a relatively sexually unattractive person has over the bastards who get all the girls.
A society in which everybody is employed by state controlled industries will reduce the advantage of the natural risk taking entrepreneur. And so on.
Mostly, people only go on about equality under the law (which can be a bit theoretic when access to justice is expensive) and a relatively low differential between peoples incomes. The first everybody goes with. The second, lefties go for. I think it can work but in societies that are very homogeneous, and not very open. I believe Japan consistently records the lowest differentials.
This is not the same as eliminating poverty. There is a widespread consensus that the creation of a large class of people with a really restricted income is good for nobody, and I wouldn't dream of disputing that. The argument starts at what that minimum level is, beyond which a person has enough for civilized life. My brother has always been poorly paid (window cleaner and pastor of low-wage Baptist church) but it has not held him back.
But that is not the same as equality. If everybody has enough, I don't see why we should stop others having more that enough. And from a christian point of view covetousness is just as great a sin as tight-fistedness.
quote:
Just noticing that, did we all love our neighbours as ourselves, there would be no disparities in net worth or income, because each others well-being would be as equally important to us as our own
Why does there well-being require them to have more riches, when it is precisely the poor that Christ said were blessed and the rich who had to watch out. You're point is taken if our neighbours do not have the basic means of life, but that doesn't mean we all need the same salary.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Rawls' principle is that inequality is justified to the extent that it benefits the worst off in society, whose interests must determine the extent of that inequality.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Poverty can be being poor and also a social status. I was poor as a student until I was 30. Being poor was okay with me because I had hope to be not poor and at least equal to others in the future. And I could do something about my poverty. Inequality is acceptable on insofar as there is hope for change and something the individual can do about it. The neoliberal economic policies we have been pursuing for 35 years have increased inequality.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or.
Perhaps not simple, but not complex either. The more one has beyond basic need, the more one is depriving others. Full stop.
No a comfortable truth, but truth no less.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
A society in which everybody is employed by state controlled industries will reduce the advantage of the natural risk taking entrepreneur. And so on.
First, though every investment is a "risk", most are not incredibly risky and those who do risk are frequently doing so with other people's money.
Second, the "entrepreneurs" are rarely the innovators.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
You're point is taken if our neighbours do not have the basic means of life, but that doesn't mean we all need the same salary.
Few, ISTM, require salaries to be equal. Just not as unequal. The greater the disparity, the greater the poverty.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Poverty can be being poor and also a social status. I was poor as a student until I was 30. Being poor was okay with me because I had hope to be not poor and at least equal to others in the future. And I could do something about my poverty. Inequality is acceptable on insofar as there is hope for change and something the individual can do about it. The neoliberal economic policies we have been pursuing for 35 years have increased inequality.
We often make the mistake of defining poverty exclusively in material terms. But as your example illustrates, it's also about dignity and perspective. As a student, you may well have been regarded as the up-and-coming elite, and a force to be reckoned with in future. This gave you Dignity. Having the end of your studies to look forward to, and with it the possibility to earn more, gave you Perspective. Social hand-outs don't always give people dignity and perspective, in fact, they often rob recipients of these two crucial attributes.
We have to gear are social thinking and our welfare systems to restoring people's feeling of self-worth and hope for the future every bit as sustaining them physically. Without these, they cannot buy into society, as it doesn't work for them, and as long as that is the case, their estrangement will be our loss as well as theirs.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I expect you would accept that people are hugely unequal in terms of their life chances, based on health, attractiveness, talent, home environment, loads of genetic factors and so on.
So the question is: To what extent should society smooth away these differences, so as to approximate to everybody having the same life chances?
Our current society is nowhere near the point where inequalities in talent and attractiveness are the major determinatives of people's life chances. The main determinative is someone's parents' wealth and income.
In any case, what makes the inequality "huge"? If your scale is calibrated so that 0 is the minimum for someone we consider able-bodied, maybe it is huge. But the differences will largely become negligible if you compare human beings with other animals.
Inequalities in health and home environment are not givens. We can do something about them.
In the absence of intervention, everybody would be living in the stone age, and would have to cooperate not to starve. It's only the way that our society is set up that we can even think that inequalities in talent might sort themselves out into large inequalities in life chance. We might set up our society a different way if we preferred. The idea that there's a natural distribution and then 'intervention' comes along is just a nonsense. The state prior to intervention is already an intervention.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
In any case, what makes the inequality "huge"?
Well, yes, that is subjective, but a rule of my thumb is: big enough to cause major resentment. I'm not too bothered about how animals factor into all this. But my rage at being socially inept and unattractive to girls was as great as some people's that they don't have the money for the life they want. In both cases we couldn't get what we thought we should have a right to. (Fortunately my wife didn't know me then). And I suspect that sexual prowess is less dependent on parental income that financial outcomes. And it is, frankly, a rather important factor in quality of life.
quote:
Inequalities in health and home environment are not givens. We can do something about them.
We can indeed, and a limited intervention, which is well costed and not overly intrusive is to be welcomed. I just fear that those who prioritize equality over freedom are liable to go too far.
quote:
In the absence of intervention, everybody would be living in the stone age, and would have to cooperate not to starve.
I don't buy these hypotheticals. No doubt we have always had to co-operate, but I doubt that you are proposing stone age intervention.
quote:
It's only the way that our society is set up that we can even think that inequalities in talent might sort themselves out into large inequalities in life chance. We might set up our society a different way if we preferred.
I agree. I only claim the correlation for societies where a relatively high degree of individual freedom of action is viewed as more important than achieving equality of outcome. I think I said that you can have other setups. I remember talking to a devout Muslim colleague about how the idea of having to go out and get a life partner freaked him out, and although he saw that he would not be able to arrange his children's marriages, he thought things would be better if he could. His arranged marriage was very happy. And I can see his point. It is, as you say, a different take on how to organise society.
I have a good friend who is no friend of communism, having been a political prisoner, but he would not deny that the GDR was a more equal place that W. Germany, and that in itself, that was a good thing. He values equality. But there were side effects!
[ 26. October 2015, 09:12: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
OK, just to put some meat into this discussion, here's some figures, gleaned from that interweb thingy.
If all the wealth of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have a net worth of $33,014.00
If all the annual income of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have an income of $10,667 per year.
But, of course, neither are equally distributed. Instead, the top 1% own half the world's assets and get half the world's income.
An equal distribution would mean an end to world hunger, most preventable diseases, and probably a good few wars, as well. Can the wealth of the richest, seen in this light, be morally or theologically justified?
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
Best wishes, PV.
(The figures in the raw: 7.3 billion people, $77.87 trillion Gross World Product, $241 trillion total world wealth, 2014/15 calculations)
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or.
Perhaps not simple, but not complex either. The more one has beyond basic need, the more one is depriving others. Full stop.
No a comfortable truth, but truth no less.
That rather depends on what the 'wealth' one is quantifying covers. Not everything is a zero-sum game, and not every gain is inevitably balanced by a corresponding loss elsewhere.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No point eh?
There is every point in supporting addicts indirectly, through provision of rehab services, housing, education, food programs and character/confidence-building courses. I just meant there is no point in directly handing out cash, which is only going to feed the addiction in a counter productive way.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
A few questions, out of idle curiosity (and not because I'm a rampant capitalist - far from it):
a) If you pledge to earn no more than $10k per annum, what's your solution if you live in an area where the cost of living is greater than that figure?
b) Do you genuinely feel it would be better to artificially limit your own earnings, even if that requires some external support to enable you to live, rather than earning more than that figure and giving the excess away to those who cannot - i.e. become a micro-agent of the kind of managed distribution your hypothetical equal distribution requires at a macro level?
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
...
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
A few questions, out of idle curiosity (and not because I'm a rampant capitalist - far from it):
a) If you pledge to earn no more than $10k per annum, what's your solution if you live in an area where the cost of living is greater than that figure?
I don't there live. I currently get around $6000 per year, incapacity benefit. $10,000 per year represents untold riches, to me! And I'm sure I could think of some suitably ethical way to distribute the difference, even if it were only buying stuff from people starting out in business, and needing the hand up, rather than the hand out.
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
b) Do you genuinely feel it would be better to artificially limit your own earnings, even if that requires some external support to enable you to live, rather than earning more than that figure and giving the excess away to those who cannot - i.e. become a micro-agent of the kind of managed distribution your hypothetical equal distribution requires at a macro level?
I'm not artificially limiting my earnings, though! The world seems quite competently intent on doing that, for me! As for giving cash away; well, I advocate that, of course, to the degree each individual is comfortable. And were my net worth/annual income to rise beyond the level of equity I present, that is precisely what I would do with the excess.
Cheers, and thanks for your interest, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
That rather depends on what the 'wealth' one is quantifying covers. Not everything is a zero-sum game, and not every gain is inevitably balanced by a corresponding loss elsewhere.
If I purchase things I do not need, I am not using that money to help people.
If a company's revenue X = A+B, A being the executives' pay and B that available to pay the rest of the company; the higher A is, the less available to B.
Not everything is zero-sum, no. Nor is everything completely simple. But we justify our comfort at the expense of others, this is clear.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
True, true. Silly poor people will spend that £1,000 on perishables items and things that lose value, like food and clothing,
More Randian rubbish.
______________
Not suggesting an equal distribution of wealth, just a more Christian/humanist one. And simply stating that our comfort comes at a cost.
If your belief is 'fuck the poor' then there isn't much to discuss. Profess anything else, though...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As ever, it's not a simple either/or.
Perhaps not simple, but not complex either. The more one has beyond basic need, the more one is depriving others. Full stop.
No a comfortable truth, but truth no less.
Hmm. I don't think your truth is terribly true. It seems rather simplistic.
So, if I have a lot of money, and buy something expensive, but then offer it for the use of my neighbours, who am I depriving?
I used to know a couple, heavily involved in the Church, who lived in a very nice house indeed on one of the city's wealthier streets. They offered their house for church events quite a bit (that's why I know how nice their house was). On Christmas Day they invited anyone in the church who didn't have family to go to.
There might be things where it is a simple case of me having more inherently meaning that others have less. But there are also plenty of things where that isn't true at all. It probably applies to some basic resources, but a heck of a lot of things we find useful are manufactured things where supply is not a zero sum.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
OK, just to put some meat into this discussion, here's some figures, gleaned from that interweb thingy.
If all the wealth of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have a net worth of $33,014.00
If all the annual income of the world were equally distributed, everyone would have an income of $10,667 per year.
But, of course, neither are equally distributed. Instead, the top 1% own half the world's assets and get half the world's income.
An equal distribution would mean an end to world hunger, most preventable diseases, and probably a good few wars, as well. Can the wealth of the richest, seen in this light, be morally or theologically justified?
My own feeling is that they can't, and I pledge to you now that my personal wealth will never exceed either of these bench mark figures; I will never earn or own more than anyone would earn or own if all the world's wealth were equally shared.
Best wishes, PV.
(The figures in the raw: 7.3 billion people, $77.87 trillion Gross World Product, $241 trillion total world wealth, 2014/15 calculations)
The cost of living is not equally distributed. Where are you going to live? Because in some locations in the world, your $10,667 will make you well off and in some other locations it will make you a pauper.
You also better figure out whether you're going to live in a society where a large amount of services are subsidised through taxes, or a society where you mostly have to satisfy your needs on your own, using your own money. Forget about developing countries, the way you spend this averaged salary of yours is going to be vastly different in the United States compared to Scandinavia.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
orfeo,
Overly simplistic my statement might be, but not untrue. I am not saying everyone should live at the bare minimum. But we justify very much at the expense of others.
We need food to eat. Do we need £2,000/kg caviar?
Yes, a long distance between bread and fancy fish eggs. But in that distance lies a lot more justification than need.
What a yone thinks is justified is their own business. Just saying that nearly everything comes at a cost.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The cost of living is not equally distributed. Where are you going to live? Because in some locations in the world, your $10,667 will make you well off and in some other locations it will make you a pauper...
Of course, the cost of living is not the same, everywhere. Why? Because wealth is not evenly distributed, everywhere. If it were, and take housing, and everyone had a net worth of $33,000, there would be no point in putting properties on the market for sums north of multiple millions. Properties would naturally incline in price and content to what people needed, and could afford.
And I think that would be a good thing.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
orfeo,
Overly simplistic my statement might be, but not untrue. I am not saying everyone should live at the bare minimum. But we justify very much at the expense of others.
We need food to eat. Do we need £2,000/kg caviar?
Yes, a long distance between bread and fancy fish eggs. But in that distance lies a lot more justification than need.
What a yone thinks is justified is their own business. Just saying that nearly everything comes at a cost.
Do we need caviar? No. But someone somewhere might very well make their living from selling caviar to people who want it.
It struck me just now that the whole give/take equation you're setting up is uncomfortably close to the logic used by people who complain about immigrants "stealing jobs". Some time ago, someone posted a rather eloquent refutation of that notion by a poet - she was from the UK or Ireland.
I can't remember all the details, but the basic point was that a hell of a lot of things don't operate as zero sum. 1 plus 1 actually equals more than 2, because when someone gets paid, they use that money to pay others, and the things they choose to spend money on are different to the things the previous person would spend money on.
I'm not a pure capitalist by any means, and I don't believe in some of the trickle-down economics that focuses entirely on business people as if they'll all be generous to their workers. But neither do I believe in the kind of socialism/communism that says everyone should be equalised.
Both kinds of ideology miss the fact that some things are best handled collectively, and some things are best handled individually, and that the answer isn't the same for each and every thing. There are areas where we should ensure that everyone's needs are met regardless of their personal wealth, and there are areas where people should be left to their own devices and allowed to spend their own resources as they see fit, including on things that some other person does not consider valuable.
I am basically the kind of "capitalist"* who (1) is incredibly grateful for the good fortune that has put me in an exceptionally good financial position, and (2) pays his taxes willingly and who knows he has capacity to pay more. The world sometimes seems to believe that I don't exist, but that's the world's problem.
*Having never done anything terribly capitalist. I've spent my working life as a public servant, not a businessman, but with a very good wage and with other fortunate circumstances.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The cost of living is not equally distributed. Where are you going to live? Because in some locations in the world, your $10,667 will make you well off and in some other locations it will make you a pauper...
Of course, the cost of living is not the same, everywhere. Why? Because wealth is not evenly distributed, everywhere. If it were, and take housing, and everyone had a net worth of $33,000, there would be no point in putting properties on the market for sums north of multiple millions. Properties would naturally incline in price and content to what people needed, and could afford.
And I think that would be a good thing.
Cheers, PV.
It is not true, though, that all property would be equal in price. The fact would remain that some property would be in more desirable locations than other. The Earth is not made up of a series of identical grid squares. Even if you strip away any notions of man-made inequality, there are parts of the planet that have abundant natural resources and parts that are resource-poor. There are parts that are naturally more beautiful than others.
If you want to understand that the world is not inherently equal in opportunity, you could start by reading some of Guns, Germs and Steel.
[ 26. October 2015, 13:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
I wonder why you think equality of wealth impossible. Clearly, in a dog-eat-dog capitalist system, it is far from likely. But in a Christian world, forgiving of mistakes, and redemptive of souls, why should enough-for-each, and no more than enough-for-each, within the constraints of the beleaguered environment, be an impossibility? Differing personality traits are insufficient explanation; it seems to me you also need a political-social-economic system that decides to magnify or minimise those differences to arrive or not arrive at economic equity.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is not true, though, that all property would be equal in price.
I didn't say it would be. I'm not arguing that no house is better than any other, just that those who still live in favella shacks and mud huts deserve better of an allegedly Christian hegemony.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact would remain that some property would be in more desirable locations than other. The Earth is not made up of a series of identical grid squares. Even if you strip away any notions of man-made inequality, there are parts of the planet that have abundant natural resources and parts that are resource-poor. There are parts that are naturally more beautiful than others.
And is this the excuse for millionaires depriving funds from people who have insufficient to feed their children?
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is silly talk. The rich need the incentive of getting richer, to get them to invest, to be entrepreneurs, and so on, without which the poor would not have even the crust that they get. The market operates as an information flow, in which information travels freely, and is freely determined at each local point. So the crust of bread is actually the high point of transcendence in this system, so the left are really devil-worshipers.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And is this the excuse for millionaires depriving funds from people who have insufficient to feed their children?
Wow.
This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any comment I've made, and I doubt it bears much resemblance to anything any other Shipmate has said either.
I'm sorry, but I simply have no interest in continuing a conversation where there's an insistence on turning everything into simplistic dichotomies. If you'll excuse me, I'm taking my centre-left swinging voter sensibilities out of here.
[ 26. October 2015, 13:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Pilgrim Vagrant, the two societies in recent years that have gone furthest in implementing the sort of approach you are advocating have been North Korea and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. This may not have been their theoretical intention. Nevertheless, the end result in both cases has been that day to day life for everybody has been made far more unpleasant than it is even for poor people in less egalitarian and dirigiste societies.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I must say, PV, that reading your posts I am reminded of the pharisee and the publican: 'Oh Lord, I thank you that i am not like this rich man here(rich being defined for this purpose as someone who has a few thousand more dollars a year income than I do)'. I do not of course say that you are indulging in the sin of spiritual pride, but you should be aware that what you are saying can make it look as if you might be.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Ha Ha. I draw attention to a gross injustice, the inequality of wealth, pledge to you I will have no part in it, and somehow I am wrong? Because I have 'the sin of pride'? Get this, I would rather be proud, and right, than complacently wealthy, and wrong. Whatever your political dynamic is up to you, I don't care. I just don't want people starving, while others party on gin-palace yachts. If that's pride, I plead guilty.
Now let's discuss the topic, not my own personal shortcomings, of which I admit to many.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Pilgrim Vagrant, the two societies in recent years that have gone furthest in implementing the sort of approach you are advocating have been North Korea and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. This may not have been their theoretical intention. Nevertheless, the end result in both cases has been that day to day life for everybody has been made far more unpleasant than it is even for poor people in less egalitarian and dirigiste societies.
Hmmm. I have no special knowledge of either nation, just the obvious observation that communist regimes have not, in general, been about the liberation of the people to the extent that they have been about the enrichment of the ruling elite. They have been about the concentration of power in the hands of the few, whatever their otherwise rhetoric. As such, they are entirely antithetical to the sentiments leading me to continue this discussion, which is about the relationship between Christianity and wealth, not the failings of communist states.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
And is this the excuse for millionaires depriving funds from people who have insufficient to feed their children?
Wow.
This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any comment I've made, and I doubt it bears much resemblance to anything any other Shipmate has said either.
I'm sorry, but I simply have no interest in continuing a conversation where there's an insistence on turning everything into simplistic dichotomies. If you'll excuse me, I'm taking my centre-left swinging voter sensibilities out of here.
I was asking the question, not casting the aspersion. I hope you will return to the discussion.
Best wishes, PV
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think we should tolerate inequality of wealth on Earth to the degree that we believe there will be inequality of wealth in Heaven.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
This is the sort of saying that is attractive because it has a "just so" feel about it. But the fact of the matter, such an experiment has never really been tried, so we don't know if it really is true or not. To really know if it's true we'd have to not only give everyone the same sum of money, but also strip them of both debt and assets and resources such as relatives or parents to help support them. If we could really restart our random sampling of 100 or so people at the same starting point, while I'm sure there'd be some variation (based, as others have noted, on other sorts of inequalities such as inborn intellect or unique skill sets) I'm not sure the inequality would be as great as we imagine. We really just don't know.
In my work with the homeless, it has been observed that "homelessness is a failure of community." Because, while it is true that for most (but by no means all) of our clients we can point to some sort of mistake or bad judgment on their part that lead to their current circumstances (e.g. addiction, criminal record) we can also observe that for the most part their errors of judgment are not all that different from similar mistakes made by the housed-- the difference being that the homeless don't have someone to bail them out (even if it's just letting them sleep on their couch for a few weeks) when they do.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's whether or not money is what we put first, before God, that matters.
Absolutely. And yet... I think this is too easy. It's too easy to say "it's not about how much money I have, it's about how important it is to me." None of us think we are consumerists, none of us think we're putting money before God. I'm sure the Rich Young Ruler didn't imagine he was an idolator.
And yet... I think Jesus' rather pointed warnings about the danger of wealth suggest that the hold money has on us is much more elusive, much more subversive, than we realize. It's far too easy for me to say "it's not about how much money, it's about whether or not money controls you" without going on to the next question, "well, does it control me???" How many of my daily decisions about the way I prioritize my time, my passion, my energy are motivated by profit-- or it's twin, comfort? I'm wary of rushing too quickly to the "it's OK as long as God is first" excuse-- Jesus is warning his hearers for a reason. And I don't have any reason to think that mostly poor agrarian 1st c. Jews were more inclined to consumerism and materialism that relatively wealthy 21st c. Westerners.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Because, while it is true that for most (but by no means all) of our clients we can point to some sort of mistake or bad judgment on their part that lead to their current circumstances (e.g. addiction, criminal record) we can also observe that for the most part their errors of judgment are not all that different from similar mistakes made by the housed-- the difference being that the homeless don't have someone to bail them out (even if it's just letting them sleep on their couch for a few weeks) when they do.
Doubly this. When you have few resources, a run of bad luck that better resourced people could survive can wipe you out.
And of course that gets us into all the ways in which people have vastly differing amounts of social capital as a result of family background, upbringing, educational chances, and so on.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
orfeo,
We have created a consumerist world. This doesn't mean it needs to continue this way. All indications are this will be our species doom if we do continue.
I made a simple statement that I still maintain is at its core true. Changing it would be complex, nuanced difficult and slow.
One simple step is to buy less and make those purchases as ethical and moral as possible. We need to demand our suppliers do the same.
I am not a free-market capitalist, I am not a communist.
I suppose I am a semi-socialist who believes the market needs restraints. And that we consumers need to consume less.
We are so fucked, aren't we?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I have found equality in two contexts. One is at the communion rail. Unemployed poor person is beside rich business owner, both with their hands out, and hopefully with contrite hearts.
The second is on the curling ice, where the same unemployed dude out draws the employed dude and gets all the glory. I'd like to say golf and some other activities are in the same category, but you can often curl for free if you're subbing in for someone, and most curling clubs will let you use a slider and broom for nothing, whereas golf seems a bit pricey.
[ 26. October 2015, 16:45: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
I can't help feeling is that this topic is where the meat meets the cleaver; are we real Christians, who believe each soul equally vital before God, or notional Christians, who think only those like us, and belong to our golf club, get to go to heaven? And who would Jesus choose?
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Hmmm. I have no special knowledge of either nation, just the obvious observation that communist regimes have not, in general, been about the liberation of the people to the extent that they have been about the enrichment of the ruling elite. They have been about the concentration of power in the hands of the few, whatever their otherwise rhetoric. As such, they are entirely antithetical to the sentiments leading me to continue this discussion, which is about the relationship between Christianity and wealth, not the failings of communist states.
Sorry, Pilgrim Vagrant but I don't agree with you. Communism is supposed to be about things like,
quote:
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.
and
quote:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
.
Are you saying if it actually happened, that that would not be liberation of the people?
You are entitled to say that you will live out your faith the way you have said you will. I suspect, though, that sooner or later, you'll find yourself in a similar position with your commitment to that of someone well known who adamantly committed himself to saying he would never deny Jesus. At least you will be consoled by being in good company.
However, for your aspiration to happen as you aspire for it, would require you and a group of people who held broadly similar views to yours, to seize world power. And that is the fundamental flaw in what you are saying.
Could I take this opportunity to challenge you on another statement, which you make in your opening post?
quote:
So, being poor, I get to speak for the poor. ...
Do you? Who has appointed you to speak on their behalf? Could I say, "being English, I get to speak for the English"? The first half is true, as illustrated by my sig. The sequitur is claptrap, and self evidently so.
What then, is the basis of your claim?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
PV: quote:
I can't help feeling is that this topic is where the meat meets the cleaver; are we real Christians, who believe each soul equally vital before God, or notional Christians, who think only those like us, and belong to our golf club, get to go to heaven? And who would Jesus choose?
Which are you? You don't identify as Christian in your profile, and some of your comments sounds like they could be veiled digs at Christianity.
And your rhetoric is beginning to sound silly. The belief that "each soul (is) equally vital before God" has nothing to do with economic equality. And the comic stereotype of someone who believes "only those like us, and belong to our golf club, get to go to heaven" is plain daft. Or do you know anyone who believes that?
Those who believe that only those that share there viewpoint on the christian view of economics are "real" christians, is not so much of a straw person.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Please believe me, I am not interested in world power. If Christians want to continue in their shambling, ramshackle way towards truth, I am quite happy to let them. They will get there eventually, even if having tried every possible falsehood, first.
And, if someone poorer than me, more virtuous, more eloquent than me, prefers to speak in my place, I am quite happy with that also. I don't want world power, just world justice, from whatever direction it might arrive.
Meanwhile, I continue to ask the question from the OP: does our bank-balance indicate the extent to which we are not Christian
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Which are you? You don't identify as Christian in your profile, and some of your comments sounds like they could be veiled digs at Christianity.
Being Christian is not necessarily the same as being uncritically Christian.
Cheers, PV
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
In any case, what makes the inequality "huge"?
Well, yes, that is subjective, but a rule of my thumb is: big enough to cause major resentment. I'm not too bothered about how animals factor into all this. But my rage at being socially inept and unattractive to girls was as great as some people's that they don't have the money for the life they want. In both cases we couldn't get what we thought we should have a right to. (Fortunately my wife didn't know me then). And I suspect that sexual prowess is less dependent on parental income that financial outcomes. And it is, frankly, a rather important factor in quality of life.
Nobody has a right to a partner, that's true.
I don't think that the ethics and politics of courtship are analogous to the ethics and politics of economic distribution.
quote:
quote:
Inequalities in health and home environment are not givens. We can do something about them.
We can indeed, and a limited intervention, which is well costed and not overly intrusive is to be welcomed. I just fear that those who prioritize equality over freedom are liable to go too far.
Whose freedom to do what?
This isn't a choice between freedom and equality, much as one side would like to present it that way. There are plenty of dictatorships with little freedom and with high inequality. It's a choice between making freedom dependent on wealth and privilege, and making everyone free.
quote:
quote:
In the absence of intervention, everybody would be living in the stone age, and would have to cooperate not to starve.
I don't buy these hypotheticals. No doubt we have always had to co-operate, but I doubt that you are proposing stone age intervention.
What hypothetical? If you strand one hundred people on a desert island with no products of society they're not going to build an industrial or mercantile society. They're going to end up with a stone age society. More so if they start out without any relevant education. Do you disagree?
I am making a point about the way the question is framed. Namely, that I don't think the concept of 'intervention' as applied here makes particular sense.
The fact that you have any property at all is entirely down to government intervention. It means that if anybody who isn't you tries to use your house or your car or your wallet the government intervenes to stop them to the best of its ability. If the government didn't do so with some reliability there would be no property.
Talking about government intervention into the market is nonsense. The market only exists because the government intervenes.
quote:
I have a good friend who is no friend of communism, having been a political prisoner, but he would not deny that the GDR was a more equal place that W. Germany, and that in itself, that was a good thing. He values equality. But there were side effects!
I'm not personally convinced that the disadvantages of the GDR were essential or even directly linked to the measures taken to reduce inequality.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Talking about government intervention into the market is nonsense. The market only exists because the government intervenes.
There are qualitative differences, though. Agreed, you can't have markets without property rights, and I certainly don't know how you get any kind of sophisticated or robust property rights without some kind of government to enforce them.
But there is, I think, a difference between the government acting as umpire, and the government playing an active role, and nudging the ball in particular directions.
(This doesn't mean that active government intervention has to be bad, but I think it's clearly distinguishable from the "umpire" role.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
May we come back, PV, to what you said about your personal circumstances. You said, IIRC, that you receive about $6K a year in Incapacity Benefits and that you would never receive morre than the income which everyone in the world would get if it were all shared out equally per capita- I think $10,667 was about the actual figure.
I think, from your profile, that you are based in the Uk- is that right? So your $6K is about £4K or £80-odd a week, which is indeed about the short-term Incap Benefit for a single person under pension age. So far, so good.
But then I asked myself, where do you live? there is no way, in the UK, that you are going to be meeting your housing costs out of that £80 a week at anything like even a social housing rent. The possibilities are:
(i) You have no fixed abode and are sleeping rough. So you have no housing costs, but equally your income is not enabling you to meet the cost of one of the most basic human requirements.
(ii) You own a home outright. Even if you have no mortgage or rent to pay, presumably you have to pay council tax and you are therefore likely on your income to be getting Council Tax Reduction, which should count as part of your income. In any case, your home will also almost certainly take your wealth over the $30K-odd that you identifed as an equitable amount of wealth for a person to have.
(iii) You are paying rent, for a room or a flat. In that case you can't possibly afford to do that, and eat, out of £80 a week. You must be getting Housing Benefit and you need to count that into your income.
(iv) You live with / stay with someone who is meeting your housing costs (a partner, friend or relative) or someone is letting you live somewhere / stay with them rent-free or at a cost that is very much lower than the market or even social rent. Whatever the arrangement is, you are receiving, if not money, money's worth (in the form of accommodation) and you need to factor that in when calculating your real income.
The point is that overall, unless you are actually sleeping rough, AFAICS your real income and/or wealth must almost certainly be rather more than the maximum 'equitable' limits to which you refer.
I am not accusing you of conscious dishonesty here, any more than, however you may have chosen to interpret my earlier post, I was accusing you of conscious spiritual pride. But I am suggesting that if you are indeed, as you appear to be, based in the UK, part of your argument, as it relates to your own position, is almost certainly based on incorrect factual assumptions.
[ 26. October 2015, 20:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.
True, true. Silly poor people will spend that £1,000 on perishables items and things that lose value, like food and clothing,
<snip>
If your belief is 'fuck the poor' then there isn't much to discuss.
I think that is an unfair interpretation of what I said. I was not implying criticism of anyone but it sounds as if you think I was, I was simply stating a fact.
______________
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Dafyd:
I do generally object to taking one aspect of equality i.e. wealth equality, and calling it equality.
My reason for raising the issue of courtship is to point out that wealth equality ( given you have the minimum ) may not be your top priority, and also that societies have found ways to reduce sexual success potential differences, namely arranged marriages, which many today still think to be a good idea, despite the reduction in freedom. Here most on the UK would reject it. Equally well, societies have found ways of reducing wage equalities (Cuba for example) and plenty of people are willing to accept the controls needed to achieve that. You might have got on well in the GDR, I don't deny that many did nor to I want to deprecate them.
But they are different to your typical Tory, who would hate to have that degree of control. That doesn't mean they are happy at inequality, and most would admit that
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
. . . in itself it is a bad thing. That's why I said that the circle can't be squared. We all want both. But our decisions will be based on which has the higher priority, and in my case it is freedom.
Your's may be different, and I can see the case for socialism and think you can make a decent one. Hence most of us drift to centre-left or in my case centre-right.
[ 27. October 2015, 07:25: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
